How to evade or profit from every legal arrest....

[iamani]

....(?)

Or "How to fleece the man who is trying to fleece you (while freeing the honest constables unharmed into the wild)"

There. Click-bait title - tick

Anyone interested.....?

[cassandra]

You're not holding your breath, are you?
You'll get used to being ignored here. In fact you might get so used to it that it becomes the norm, the preferred norm, and then you get annoyed that some bastard actually answered you. People don't want to engage with you - they want you to give them stuff and then bugger off and not be a nuisance and stay away until you have something more for them. Paint-by-numbers law, magic templates, free pussy and so on. That kind of thing goes down well but, and here's the thing, never ever wait for answers. That's like waiting for an honest Asian businessman to give you a good deal.

So, I tell you what; you tell auntie Cassie all about it and she'll rub it better for you.
Cass and Ra.

[iamani]

Hi cassandra

Thanks ever so for the tea and sympathy - not strictly necessary but still appreciated. You are right in what you say and i've witnessed the frustration of the more committed members of this forum. Many's the time pearl was cast before swine and they turned up their noses, yet if somebody places a price tag on the same pearl the same swine are clamoring to part with their piglets for it!

Rather than causing me to fret it gave me an idea - if good info is only seen as such when it costs money, then maybe that's the way to go.

Has anyone done a crowd fund project as a legal-crash-test-dummy? Someone willing to run the risk of arrest while demonstrating the new theories of remedy and filming it? Have you ever thought to yourself "i'd pay to see someone try that"? i know i have, but never considered doing it myself - until now!

Really, the 'remedy' that came to me is so, so simple. Somebody must have posted it before and i've missed it. Of course there's the possibility that my reasoning is flawed and there's a hole in it staring me in the face.

Question is, how confident in it am i. ....? Food for thought.

Cheers!

[cassandra]

Hi cassandra

Someone willing to run the risk of arrest while demonstrating the new theories of remedy and filming it? Have you ever thought to yourself "i'd pay to see someone try that"? i know i have, but never considered doing it myself - until now!

Really, the 'remedy' that came to me is so, so simple. Somebody must have posted it before and i've missed it. Of course there's the possibility that my reasoning is flawed and there's a hole in it staring me in the face.

Cheers!

I vote for Dreadlock to go out and try it.

Now, you still haven't told auntie Cassie what it is - have you? No matter, I still vote for Dreadlock.

By the way, what's it like for you to go onto active topics and find a whole page with nothing and no-one but you there? Is that cool or what?
Cassandra.

[iamani]

Hi cassandra

Yup, it's all about the crazy loner when the board's like that.

I reckon you might get it the way i got it. I Googled pace section 1, clicked the first one (think legislation. gov or something. The very first line - 'the power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc.' is the key. Then sub (1), a) and b) just about wrap it up.

If i got it anyone can!

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings!

It's about you and the constable having equal power (providing you are acting lawfully) and who exercises it first. OK, basic paint-by-numbers scenario it is then:

John James Doe see's the approaching agents and decides to take control of the situation. He activates his digital pitchfork and initiates contact.

"Greetings constables, my name is john james and i'll be happy to talk to you if you can confirm you are real constables. Can you identify yourselves for the camera please, names numbers and station thank you..."

"Blah blah (names numbers and station)"

"... and you both took oath, yes?"

"Yes"

"Thank you. i hereby acknowledge and accept your oaths. Pleased to meet you, hope you caught my name. Please allow me to introduce myself, i'm a MAN of health and grace. i may well be the beneficiary of an estate held in trust by the Crown but i am not a Trustee nor can i be persuaded to be. Neither am i an agent or employee of either the govt. or crown. That said, constables, how can i help you?"

(possibly not) The End

[iamani]

Greetings!

Scenario: John James Doe receives a phone call advising him that police - while answering a call from a neighbouring flat - noticed that his door lock appeared damaged and entered his flat. Once inside they discovered 8 (sob!) gorgeous fragrant young ladies in their prime. The police kidnapped (grrr!) the 8 innocent virgins and left, leaving word with a neighbour for John James Doe to call them. This he does, to be advised that it wasn't a hugely serious matter, there wasn't to be an arrest, and the matter would initially be dealt with by post.

Given the shakey ground they may be on with the door issue, i wondered what might possibly be in their first letter?

Cheers!

[iamani]

Greetings!

OK, let's expand on the first scenario.

When a police officer approaches you he intends to establish his authority/jurisdiction over you via your own consent. If he asks you a question and you answer it you have just ceded jurisdiction to him. By fair-turn-about if you get him to answer a question first then you (technically) have gained jurisdiction (though you may find it difficult to maintain that situation...).

If you know your actions have been lawful and you see an agent approaching, you know he wants to talk 'policy enforcement'. The scenario presented suggests an idea on how to 'lock' them into constable/peacekeeper mode. Instead of ASKING if they are on oath you are PLACING them on oath - altogether different, and you have now 'contracted' them into dealing with you under common-law with video evidence to boot!

If they choose to stray into 'policy' business point out that you have already given them the only name they're entitled to ask for (and without ceding jurisdiction too!) and only consented to talk with 'constables', and if they are detaining you for 'policy' business then they are on a very sticky wicket leaving themselves wide open (video evidence!) to private prosecution (fraud, misrepresentation, abuse of office, kidnap etc).

Remember, if this is to work at all you MUST be filming the encounter - preferably streaming - and if you don't have a camera you might wish to use slightly different tactics.

Oh, and maybe leave out the 'Sympathy for the Devil' smart-arsery - you might accidentally slip in a 'woo-wooo' at the wrong moment....

Cheers!

[Dreadlock]

Hi,

No m8y. Answering someone's question does not grant them jurisdiction over you.

me: "What time is it?"
iamani: "8am."
me: "Right, come with me I have jurisdicition over you because you told me the time."

See what I mean?

[iamani]

Hi dreadlock

You're absolutely right - and wrong at the same time (according to the scenario presented). You and i are not agents, there is no question of jurisdiction likely to arise, so if we were to meet and you asked me if i have the time, i'd smile coquettishly, wink and say "if you have the money". Then i'd laugh at my own hilarity and tell you the time. If you then asked me to accompany you i would tell you it was only a joke, i'm not really a prostitute....

john james - a man with a common-law right to arrest a wrong-doer

Constable - a man with the same right but only when acting under
oath-of-office (as a man entrusted).

Police Officer - a human male in a uniform with less rights than a
man, with no powers of arrest or anything else
unless the victim/person consents. (Answering his
questions as a 'person' signifies consent). At this
point the policy enforcer
ceases to be a mere security goon and becomes
'god'.

i hope that helps clarify the point you brought up.

Cheers!